Cracking open the bug nest: 13 tons bunker buster

Skybird · 03-09-12, 10:08 AM

In this German news article it is claimed the US had developed a bunker buster weighing 13 tons and being able to penetrate 65 meters of steel concrete before going off.

http://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/a...ter-Beton.html

Well. This is contradicting everything I have ever read in past years about the physics of such a bomb release. If you drop a mass from a given altitude, it has this and that maximum speed to which it can accelerate, and this and that kinetic penetration power. So far I read physics set absolute limits to any multi-ton bomb that could be carried by an airplane in service today penetrating more than just 13-18 meters. Also, it was doubted so far a bomb case could be constructed that does not desintegrate completey when penetrating several dozens of meters of concrete or solid rock, making the fuse ands warhead nonfunctional.

What to amke of this news then? They say the bomb had been delivered to the US forces just last year. But the numbers they claim make me wondering, I do not trust them. Sure, it would be nice to have that beast in sufficient quantities, the limits set by physics are my argument why I do not rule out the use of mini-nukes against certain Iranian, hardened targets. If this new bomb could do the job of a mini-nuke, I would be the first to applaud this conventional option. That I demanded the use of mini-nukes does not mean I like to use them.

But it must be a functional option, capable of doing the job reliably.

So all you physicists out there: considering mass, drop altitude, maximum acceleration and top speed, and penetration depth against a hardened structure - are 13 tons versus 65m of steel concrete and solid rock a realistic statement?

Jimbuna · 03-09-12, 10:23 AM

How credible is the source in your opinion?

Osmium Steele · 03-09-12, 10:28 AM

If it is a kinetic penetrator only, it is doubtful. Like an HE round from a tank getting through steel plate.

Shape and weight are factors in penetration. (Knock it off, Dowly

) Also, there is no reason the fuse or warhead has to be in the front of the munition.

Possibly a multi-stage munition? Ever see camera footage of a double bomb strike? The first bomb clears a path for the second to penetrate to the target before the debris cloud can settle? Be interesting to see if that would be possible with a single big munition.

Skybird · 03-09-12, 10:43 AM

I thought about a multi-detonation bomb, too. A purely kinetic option to penetrate that deep I almost rule out. But the article says nothing about the bomb's design, only that it weighs 13 tons.

But still, imagine that - removing 65 m of hardened obstacles by exploding one device in multiple stages - I have imagination, yes, but I cannot imagine this. I look out of my window where my table is placed, and see the houses behind the garden lines, they are 50 m away - looks like an awfull lot of distance, especially when it is no empty space but steel concrete or mountain rock.

I currently tend to think it is an American bluff.

eddie · 03-09-12, 10:48 AM

It is a real bomb, Air Force has been working to get better bunker busters for a few years now. Not sure how well it works, not a scientist. But the newer ones being worked on now, are half the size of this bomb, and will be rocket powered. Should have enough kinetic energy then!
I would wonder about the power of the shockwave from this 15 ton bomb, the warhead is 2.4 tons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive...nce_Penetrator

Skybird · 03-09-12, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbuna

How credible is the source in your opinion?

The article claims Lieutenant General Herbert Carlisle to be their source. He's Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, Plans and Requirements of the USAF.

eddie · 03-09-12, 11:49 AM

They explain more about this bomb in this video. During the test of the bomb, see how well it keeps its shape after going through the first layer of concrete. Would one bomb like this destroy its target first time aound? Not sure myself, but if hit mulitple times by bombs this size, something has to give!

Jimbuna · 03-09-12, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

The article claims Lieutenant General Herbert Carlisle to be their source. He's Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, Plans and Requirements of the USAF.

Quote:

Originally Posted by eddie

They explain more about this bomb in this video. During the test of the bomb, see how well it keeps its shape after going through the first layer of concrete. Would one bomb like this destroy its target first time aound? Not sure myself, but if hit mulitple times by bombs this size, something has to give!

Rgr that....but somehow I don't think the US are bluffing and I seriously doubt Iran will want to put it to the test, especially with Israel itching to be unleashed.

Oberon · 03-09-12, 02:51 PM

Now that is pretty damn impressive. Puts our Grand Slams to shame.

Skybird · 03-09-12, 03:14 PM

The video reveals nothing on the penetration capacity of this new bomb. Two layers of what looks like 1 m or so concrete, with empty space betwene them, in no way compare to 65 m of dense armoured material like steel concrete, solid mountain rock, or anything like that.

And the comment also said something that rang my alarm, their remark that the bomb was announced one week after the latest report about Iran hiding new facilities in mountains. It sounds as if the author of this anouncement wanted to disarm any alarm calls and any words of warning over Iran making its program invulnerable: "See, they can run, but they cannot hide from our new superbomb. No need to attack right now. We still have time left."

Penetrating 65 m of massive concrete or mountain rock, geez, come to your sense, try tio imagine that! I think it is a massive propaganda stunt designed to avoid a conclusion that Iran either is allowed to become invulnerable with its program or needs to be struck right now. Obama certainbly wants now war against Iran right now, before being reelected. But the Israelis maybe cannot wait that long anymore. Obama's detemnrination on Iran I question since very long, and that the West imo is more or less openly anti-Israel anyway.

I fear that the dislike for needing to wage war on Iran will determine the issue in favour of Iran, and that the decision to arrange oneself with a nuclear race in the ME and with a nuclear armed Iran already has been made.

And Obama's words?

Words - that is air in motion.

I do not trust him, not after his foolish Cairo-speech at the latest.

In case these bombs are as effective as claimed, I only hope that Obama allows them to be delivered to Israel, like Israel has put an order for them just recently. If he does not, then we can safely assume that Obama will protect Iran from Western strikes, no matter what his motives are. And that he is accepting a nuclear armed Iran and a nuclear race in the ME with all the risks involved.

Jimbuna · 03-09-12, 03:42 PM

Are you being serious about Obama accepting a nuclear Iran?

Iran has been issued fair warning regarding the wests concerns and possible actions...whilst it is possible they may have their nuclear merchandise too deep for an effective strike (even by that bomb should it actually exist), Israel certainly has enough capability to bury the underground sites making them out of reach for a long time.

The point I'm making is....if they can't be destroyed, they can certainly be contained and made out of reach to those who created them.

Skybird · 03-09-12, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbuna

Are you being serious about Obama accepting a nuclear Iran?

Iran has been issued fair warning regarding the wests concerns and possible actions...whilst it is possible they may have their nuclear merchandise too deep for an effective strike (even by that bomb should it actually exist), Israel certainly has enough capability to bury the underground sites making them out of reach for a long time.

The point I'm making is....if they can't be destroyed, they can certainly be contained and made out of reach to those who created them.

I do not trust Obama's speeches. His latest remarks on Iran, on determination and diplomacy, to me were a clear display of self-contradiction.

I think he will put his own political and campaign interests first. He already plays with the fire, as I see it. And I think he will not attack Iran before getting re-elected, even if after november it is too late. Whether he would strike after November in case Iran is still vulnerable then, also is an open question to me. Maybe he would, maybe not. But not before being re-elected.

Whether he will jump in if the Israelis start all malone without asking for his kind permission, is something different. He probably cannot afford to not fight then. But he will not learn to love Israel any more for that.

In other words I do not give much for Obama's words. I never did, even when I admitted he held a speech again that impressed the crowds. I admit he is a gifted speaker, but that means nothing more than rethorics.

And rethorics are no arguments, but the compensation for lack of arguments. Sometimes amusing, but almost never constructive.

Skybird · 03-09-12, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbuna

The point I'm making is....if they can't be destroyed, they can certainly be contained and made out of reach to those who created them.

It's not difficult to hide a small suitcase with some weapoin-capable material. You even do not need a big bunker anymore - but you can blackmail others to your liking.

Once Iran has enough nuclear material to build a bomb, no matter whether a terror bomb in s suitcase, or a warhgead for a missile, it will be too late. Any kind of military action then will make no sense anymore.

eddie · 03-09-12, 06:34 PM

Can't you just feel it in the air!?! Everyone is waiting for someone to jump down his throat with both feet!

I'll pass for now, but I can't speak for others around here.

We go from talking about whether or not a certain bomb exsists, to a political diatribe from a soapbox! Sheeesh!

Commander Mysenses · 03-10-12, 03:41 AM

Interesting to note penetration jumps from 60m to 60 feet depending on source..... mixups like that crash probes into Mars at 150,000 mph!

03-09-12, 10:08 AM	#1
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,604 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Cracking open the bug nest: 13 tons bunker buster In this German news article it is claimed the US had developed a bunker buster weighing 13 tons and being able to penetrate 65 meters of steel concrete before going off. http://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/a...ter-Beton.html Well. This is contradicting everything I have ever read in past years about the physics of such a bomb release. If you drop a mass from a given altitude, it has this and that maximum speed to which it can accelerate, and this and that kinetic penetration power. So far I read physics set absolute limits to any multi-ton bomb that could be carried by an airplane in service today penetrating more than just 13-18 meters. Also, it was doubted so far a bomb case could be constructed that does not desintegrate completey when penetrating several dozens of meters of concrete or solid rock, making the fuse ands warhead nonfunctional. What to amke of this news then? They say the bomb had been delivered to the US forces just last year. But the numbers they claim make me wondering, I do not trust them. Sure, it would be nice to have that beast in sufficient quantities, the limits set by physics are my argument why I do not rule out the use of mini-nukes against certain Iranian, hardened targets. If this new bomb could do the job of a mini-nuke, I would be the first to applaud this conventional option. That I demanded the use of mini-nukes does not mean I like to use them. But it must be a functional option, capable of doing the job reliably. So all you physicists out there: considering mass, drop altitude, maximum acceleration and top speed, and penetration depth against a hardened structure - are 13 tons versus 65m of steel concrete and solid rock a realistic statement? __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

03-09-12, 10:23 AM	#2
Jimbuna Chief of the Boat Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: 250 metres below the surface Posts: 190,473 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 13	How credible is the source in your opinion? __________________ Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something. Oh my God, not again!!

03-09-12, 10:28 AM	#3
Osmium Steele Ace of the Deep Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Upper midwest USA Posts: 1,101 Downloads: 22 Uploads: 0	If it is a kinetic penetrator only, it is doubtful. Like an HE round from a tank getting through steel plate. Shape and weight are factors in penetration. (Knock it off, Dowly ) Also, there is no reason the fuse or warhead has to be in the front of the munition. Possibly a multi-stage munition? Ever see camera footage of a double bomb strike? The first bomb clears a path for the second to penetrate to the target before the debris cloud can settle? Be interesting to see if that would be possible with a single big munition. __________________ In the month of July of the year 1348, between the feasts of St. Benedict and of St. Swithin, a strange thing came upon England... My U297 build thread

03-09-12, 10:43 AM	#4
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,604 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	I thought about a multi-detonation bomb, too. A purely kinetic option to penetrate that deep I almost rule out. But the article says nothing about the bomb's design, only that it weighs 13 tons. But still, imagine that - removing 65 m of hardened obstacles by exploding one device in multiple stages - I have imagination, yes, but I cannot imagine this. I look out of my window where my table is placed, and see the houses behind the garden lines, they are 50 m away - looks like an awfull lot of distance, especially when it is no empty space but steel concrete or mountain rock. I currently tend to think it is an American bluff. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

03-09-12, 10:48 AM	#5
eddie Ocean Warrior Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Minnesota Posts: 3,023 Downloads: 99 Uploads: 0	It is a real bomb, Air Force has been working to get better bunker busters for a few years now. Not sure how well it works, not a scientist. But the newer ones being worked on now, are half the size of this bomb, and will be rocket powered. Should have enough kinetic energy then! I would wonder about the power of the shockwave from this 15 ton bomb, the warhead is 2.4 tons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive...nce_Penetrator __________________ Don't mistake my kindness for weakness. I'm kind to everyone, but when someone is unkind to me, weak is not what you are going to remember about me. Al Capone

03-09-12, 11:49 AM	#7
eddie Ocean Warrior Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Minnesota Posts: 3,023 Downloads: 99 Uploads: 0	They explain more about this bomb in this video. During the test of the bomb, see how well it keeps its shape after going through the first layer of concrete. Would one bomb like this destroy its target first time aound? Not sure myself, but if hit mulitple times by bombs this size, something has to give! __________________ Don't mistake my kindness for weakness. I'm kind to everyone, but when someone is unkind to me, weak is not what you are going to remember about me. Al Capone

03-09-12, 02:51 PM	#9
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	Now that is pretty damn impressive. Puts our Grand Slams to shame.

03-09-12, 03:14 PM	#10
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,604 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	The video reveals nothing on the penetration capacity of this new bomb. Two layers of what looks like 1 m or so concrete, with empty space betwene them, in no way compare to 65 m of dense armoured material like steel concrete, solid mountain rock, or anything like that. And the comment also said something that rang my alarm, their remark that the bomb was announced one week after the latest report about Iran hiding new facilities in mountains. It sounds as if the author of this anouncement wanted to disarm any alarm calls and any words of warning over Iran making its program invulnerable: "See, they can run, but they cannot hide from our new superbomb. No need to attack right now. We still have time left." Penetrating 65 m of massive concrete or mountain rock, geez, come to your sense, try tio imagine that! I think it is a massive propaganda stunt designed to avoid a conclusion that Iran either is allowed to become invulnerable with its program or needs to be struck right now. Obama certainbly wants now war against Iran right now, before being reelected. But the Israelis maybe cannot wait that long anymore. Obama's detemnrination on Iran I question since very long, and that the West imo is more or less openly anti-Israel anyway. I fear that the dislike for needing to wage war on Iran will determine the issue in favour of Iran, and that the decision to arrange oneself with a nuclear race in the ME and with a nuclear armed Iran already has been made. And Obama's words? Words - that is air in motion. I do not trust him, not after his foolish Cairo-speech at the latest. In case these bombs are as effective as claimed, I only hope that Obama allows them to be delivered to Israel, like Israel has put an order for them just recently. If he does not, then we can safely assume that Obama will protect Iran from Western strikes, no matter what his motives are. And that he is accepting a nuclear armed Iran and a nuclear race in the ME with all the risks involved. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

03-09-12, 03:42 PM	#11
Jimbuna Chief of the Boat Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: 250 metres below the surface Posts: 190,473 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 13	Are you being serious about Obama accepting a nuclear Iran? Iran has been issued fair warning regarding the wests concerns and possible actions...whilst it is possible they may have their nuclear merchandise too deep for an effective strike (even by that bomb should it actually exist), Israel certainly has enough capability to bury the underground sites making them out of reach for a long time. The point I'm making is....if they can't be destroyed, they can certainly be contained and made out of reach to those who created them. __________________ Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something. Oh my God, not again!!

03-09-12, 06:34 PM	#14
eddie Ocean Warrior Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Minnesota Posts: 3,023 Downloads: 99 Uploads: 0	Can't you just feel it in the air!?! Everyone is waiting for someone to jump down his throat with both feet! I'll pass for now, but I can't speak for others around here. We go from talking about whether or not a certain bomb exsists, to a political diatribe from a soapbox! Sheeesh! __________________ Don't mistake my kindness for weakness. I'm kind to everyone, but when someone is unkind to me, weak is not what you are going to remember about me. Al Capone

03-10-12, 03:41 AM	#15
Commander Mysenses Navy Dude Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: AM98 - Rounding Hartland Point and sneaking up the Bristol Channel Posts: 173 Downloads: 137 Uploads: 0	Interesting to note penetration jumps from 60m to 60 feet depending on source..... mixups like that crash probes into Mars at 150,000 mph!